Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sigh. It's hard to resist tendentious messages. I have two
questions for Mr Bennett.

Q1.

> message from our public relations agency

To whom or what does "our" refer in this phrase?

Q2. Does your signature block:
>> Richard Bennett
>> Senior Research Fellow
>> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
>> Washington, DC
imply that you are making a statement on behalf that foundation?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter (writing only for himself)

On 2010-09-08 11:26, Richard Bennett wrote:
>   I think you should have shared the message from our public relations agency 
> that started this incident, Russ. Here's what it said:
> ------------------
> IETF Chair speaks on Paid Prioritization - Thursday, September 2, 2010
> 
> "I note the recent discussion in the U.S. media in connection with 'paid
> prioritization' of Internet traffic and the claim that RFC 2474
> 'expressly contemplating paid prioritization.'  This characterization of
> the IETF standard and the use of the term 'paid prioritization' by AT&T
> is misleading.  The IETF's prioritization technologies allow users to
> indicate how they would like their service providers to handle their
> Internet traffic. The IETF does not imply any specific payment based on
> prioritization as a separate service."
> 
> Melissa Kahaly
> Assistant Vice President
>   <http://www.fd.com/>
> 88 Pine Street, 32nd Floor
> New York, NY, 10005
> T +1 (212) 850-5709
> F +1 (212) 850-5790
> M +1 (732) 245-8491
> www.fd.com <http://www.fd.com/>
> 
> A member of FTI Consulting Inc.
> -----------------
> 
> This clearly isn't Russ Housley speaking as an individual, this is the IETF 
> Chair making an official statement.
> 
> The statement is misleading as RFC 2474 neither *implies any specific payment* 
> nor *denies any specific payment*. RFC 2475, RFC 2638, and RFC 3006 are plenty 
> clear on the relationship of technical standards to commercial arrangements.
> 
> And yes, the Architecture RFCs are classified as "Informational" but that 
> doesn't stop the Proposed Standards from referencing their "requirements" as RFC 
> 3246 does:
> 
> "In addition, traffic conditioning at the ingress to a DS-domain MUST ensure 
> that only packets having DSCPs that correspond to an EF PHB when they enter the 
> DS-domain are marked with a DSCP that corresponds to EF inside the DS-domain. 
> *Such behavior is as required by the Differentiated Services architecture* [4 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3246#ref-4>]. It protects against 
> denial-of-service and theft-of-service attacks which exploit DSCPs that are not 
> identified in any Traffic Conditioning Specification provisioned at an ingress 
> interface, but which map to EF inside the DS-domain."
> 
> [Footnote 4] Black, D., Blake, S., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W. 
> Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2475>, December 1998.
> 
> I don't have any desire to limit Russ Housley's free speech rights, but it's 
> clear from all the evidence that he approached the press as the Chairman of IETF 
> with a statement to make about the argument between AT&T and Free Press, and 
> it's the statement in the official capacity that bothers me. I wouldn't take up 
> the IETF's time with a personal disagreement between Russ' interpretation of 
> DiffServ and anyone else's, but this issue is clearly far beyond that.
> 
> Finally, the term "paid-prioritization" wasn't coined by AT&T, it comes from the 
> statement by Free Press that AT&T was criticizing. In Free Press' usage it means 
> any departure from FIFO behavior for a fee.
> 
> RB
> 
> On 9/7/2010 3:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Richard:
>>
>>> Russ said to the press that he considers AT&T's belief that the RFCs
>>> envisioned payment for premium services implemented over DiffServ or
>>> MPLS to be "invalid."
>> This is not what I said.  I said 'misleading.'
>>
>> The letter from AT&T jumbles some things together.  AT&T makes many
>> correct points, but in my opinion, a reader will get a distorted
>> impression from the parts of the letter where things get jumbled.
>>
>> Adding to this situation, it is clear to me that the term "paid
>> prioritization" does not have the same meaning to all readers.  If you
>> read the AT&T letter with one definition in your head, then you get one
>> overall message, and if you read the letter with the other in your head,
>> then you get a different overall message.  I tried to make this point.
>>
>> This was captured pretty clearly in the article by Eliza Krigman:
>> | The feud boiled down to what it means to have "paid
>> | prioritization," ...
>>
>> As I said on Friday, I made the point that DiffServ can be used to make
>> sure that traffic associated with applications that require timely
>> delivery, like voice and video, to give preference over traffic
>> associated with applications without those demands, like email.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is not simple, and I said so.  I used an example in my
>> discussion with Declan McCullagh.  I think that Declan captured this
>> point in his article, except that he said 'high priority', when I
>> actually said 'requiring timely delivery':
>> | The disagreement arises from what happens if Video Site No. 1 and
>> | Video Site No. 2 both mark their streams as high priority. "If two
>> | sources of video are marking their stuff the same, then that's where
>> | the ugliness of this debate begins," Housley says. "The RFC doesn't
>> | talk about that...If they put the same tags, they'd expect the same
>> | service from the same provider."
>>
>> Clearly, if the two video sources have purchased different amounts of
>> bandwidth, then the example breaks down.  However, that is not the point
>> in this debate.
>>
>> Russ
>>
> 
> -- 
> Richard Bennett
> Senior Research Fellow
> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
> Washington, DC
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]